Kerala, an Indian state in the south, is highly renowned for having high human development indices, especially

in the areas of education and health. Notwithstanding these successes, the state still has serious housing

problems, especially for its low-income citizens. Public housing for low-income individuals is an important

sector in which the state has made significant investments. Kerala has gone a long way in terms of sheltering its

impoverished citizens. Numerous initiatives, like as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), have been

now, the satisfaction on the physical facilities of the dwelling unit, the difficulties it faces, and possible solutions

for sustainable growth.

Governance

The government is acting as a catalyst for providing homes for low-income people and other issues. In India, the

central and state governments formulate policies for providing adequate housing for the poor and marginalised

people. The housing policy aims to ensure everyone has a decent place to live. The nation's strategies for human

habitation are implemented through local self-government institutions. They plan, design, and implement

different schemes following the local conditions and circumstances based on their socio-economic and cultural

housing is a basic human need and it also considered as determinant of human health, social inclusion, and

quality of life. However, for many individuals and families with limited financial resources, achieving

satisfactory housing conditions poses significant challenges. Housing satisfaction depends on a wide range of

elements, including the occupant's home, local amenities, neighbour relationships, and the location of the

housing unit. The physical components of the housing area, such as the common areas, ventilation and lighting,

kitchen, rooms, drainage system, sanitary latrines and bathrooms, etc., all have a role in the overall satisfaction

the house along with different aspects like housing affordability, socio cultural environment, and livelihood

project with their dwellings and its basic amenities.

The stakeholders are surveyed with pre-tested organized schedules as part of the research's core data gathering

process.

The scope of the study is all Kerala. A multistage sampling procedure was used to choose the sample. The

samples of beneficiaries from each of the three LSGI categories—Corporations, Municipalities, and Punjayats—

separately. There are very little variances across geographic locations, except from beneficiary eligibility

differences amongst the three LSGI categories. Two Districts are therefore chosen in the first stage for the

sample. LSGIs are chosen in the second round of sampling as the focus of this study is housing assistance given

by local self-government organisations in Kerala. Respondents were chosen at the end from each designated

local self-government Institutions.

fundamental feature of the welfare agenda, demonstrating the state's dedication to social justice and inclusive

growth.

Residential satisfaction is a crucial metric that planners, architects, developers, and policy makers utilise in a

variety of ways. It is described as the feeling of fulfilment one has when they have or attain what they need or

desire in a house. The housing requirements theory, housing deficit theory, and psychological construct theory

are the three theories that are connected to residential satisfaction. Most empirical investigations have employed

one or more of these theories, or a mixture of them, in their study design. After analysing a number of variables

that reflect sociodemographic traits, housing and neighbourhood characteristics, and their perceptions of these

things, it has become clear that more research is necessary before a general theory of residential satisfaction or

dissatisfaction can be developed (Abidin et al., 2019). Physical characteristics were essential for those living in

African public housing projects (the economic centre of Southern Africa). The proposed model presupposes that

the adequacy level of the residence and its surroundings, as well as the beneficiaries' subjective happiness with

the housing environment, be measured (Aigbavboa, 2015). Five objective components of satisfaction were

examined in order to examine housing satisfaction: the social environment, public facilities, housing unit

features, housing unit support services, and neighbourhood facilities. Beneficiaries' levels of satisfaction were

measured using a Likert scale (Abdul & Nurul, 2018). The government must update the housing estate to make

it more visually beautiful and liveable in order to improve the perception and satisfaction of the estate among

residents and non-residents (Adeleye et al., 2014). Indigenous people have unique challenges when it comes to

housing and how it affects their health when they live in rural places (Ross S. & Wayte, 2006). Lack of space,

the requirement for particular kinds of rooms, and floor layouts that did not provide privacy appear to be the

'individual or family dwells' is referred to as their "area of residence". The Constitution of India has delegated

responsibility for housing and urban development to the state governments. At the local level, a dwelling and

shelter strategic plan would be prepared, which would be integrated with the poverty reduction scheme. “APL

and BPL categorization” is a financial benchmark based on a certain level of revenue. The Indian government

sets it. In general, absolute poverty limits are derived by assessing the survival requirements of diverse

based on the needs and aspirations by categorizing the prospective beneficiaries.

The Table 1, reveals the Local body-wise area of residence of the respondents, shows that 414 (67.9 percentage)

reside in an area under grama panchayat. Out of the 610 respondents, 141 (23.1 percentage) belong to

houses into liveable houses, and the number of respondents under this category is 8 (1.3 percentage).

Housing satisfaction depends on a wide range of elements, including the occupant's home, local amenities,

neighbour relationships, and the location of the housing unit. The physical components of the housing area, such

etc., all have a role in the overall satisfaction with the housing. Mean Score Analysis is a simple analytical tool

applied to identify the level of agreement or the level of satisfaction of the variables under the research study.

Mean Score Analysis is quite powerful in categorizing the level when the data is collected by using any type of

scale. The respondents are asked about the nine facilities available in the house, like Kitchen, sanitary latrine

Electrification and plumbing, etc., on a five-point Likert scale. The responses are scored as 1 for ‘Highly

dissatisfied’, 2 for ‘Dissatisfied’, 3 for ‘Neutral’, 4 for ‘satisfied’ and 5 for ‘Highly satisfied. The total score of

The LIFE mission project provides housing assistance in various forms based on the needs and aspirations of the

prospective beneficiaries. The categorization of respondents based on the beneficiary category is Homeless with

land, Land less and Homeless and Unfinished/Non-liveable Houses. Housing satisfaction is influenced by the

physical aspects of the housing area, including the common areas, ventilation and lighting, kitchen, rooms,

drainage system, sanitary latrines and baths. Mean percentage score analyses of satisfaction on physical facilities

of the house on different beneficiary category have discoursed below. The Table 3 shows the Mean Percentage

Land Less and Homeless and Unfinished/Non-Liveable Houses

Non-Residents of Ibara Housing Estate, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. American Journal of Human

Ecology, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.11634/216796221403586

Funded Housing in South Africa. http://www.uj.ac.za

income housing scheme. International Journal of Construction Management, 12(1), 1–21.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2012.10773181

Housing in India. JETIRK006086 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 5(11),

583–588.

Householders in Salak Selatan Squatter Resettlement. In Pcrtanika (Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 76–83).

Cities, 81, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.012